[alancalverd]

Yes. January 2029, hypothermia. The date may be delayed if I am in good health and happily married.

So it's not a fixed date. If newest technology can keep you and your wife healthy indefinitely, you would rather continue to live indefinitely.

Only if my granddaughters are infertile - which seems unlikely. I'll probably be bored by 2100, though I'd hope to pass Grade 8 piano by then.

I'm already too old to fly passengers on scheduled routes, and there will come a time when the Powers that Be require me to spend so much time re-taking exams and medicals that I won't be able to fly or drive at all.
 
I review the target date every year (good business practice as required by ISO9000) and it hasn't changed since 1985.

[alancalverd]

For the UK and similar countries: abolish all child and maternity benefits and pay every woman aged 15 to 55 £500 every 6 months if she is not pregnant. Allow one exception to the "nonpregnant" rule and another if the child does not survive to age 16. Those who can afford to raise more than one child with no state support can do whatever they wish.

How did you come up with those numbers? Do you think that the new rules would affect how kids already born will grow?

The numbers are chosen to provide a strong incentive for teenagers and a token reward for mature women, whilst remaining below the cost to the public purse of education, health and social services associated with a child. £1000 per year will buy a lot of contraception if you don't like the free stuff provided by the NHS, or a useful cushion for the one child you do have.

It's a while since I did the calculation and maybe £700 would be a better sum for the UK - happy to negotiate. For the rest of the world, it's at the very least a commitment to provide girls with a healthcare professional consultation twice a year, and an incentive to attend.

Those already born will on average have fewer young siblings than previous generations. No big deal - I am an only child and never thought it odd.   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The "golden rule" and the "wife test" can be pretty universally applied and should be taught at an early age.

The golden rule ligitimizes violence done by masochists, and the wife test ligitimizes violence done by loveless persons.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I'm already too old to fly passengers on scheduled routes, and there will come a time when the Powers that Be require me to spend so much time re-taking exams and medicals that I won't be able to fly or drive at all.

In a few years machine will fly aeroplanes and drive cars much better than any human.
Ageing process would be halted, and even reversed. You only need to survive long enough until it becomes reality.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How we treat nonhuman species depends on the species and its ecological role. I can see no advantage in the malaria plasmodium to any species but itself, likewise tapeworms, so I'm happy to poison them.

at least they are useful as food for their predators. They can also control population of their preys.

[alancalverd]

The golden rule ligitimizes violence done by masochists,

no, violence done to masochists.

and the wife test ligitimizes violence done by loveless persons.

no, it doesn't give permission but militates against violence.

The fact that something is immoral doesn't stop anyone doing it, nor does it make the action always wrong (war, selfdefence...)  but the tests provide a framework for criminal law.  And a moral action must pass both tests.

[alancalverd]

In a few years machine will fly aeroplanes and drive cars much better than any human.

Fine, but if they stop me from doing it, I'll lose the will to live.

Ageing process would be halted, and even reversed.

OK, a bit of hair wouldn't come amiss, but do I really want acne and a squeaky voice? How will my great grandson react when a randy 120-year-old millionaire Adonis starts chatting up his girlfriend? 

[alancalverd]

at least they are useful as food for their predators

Please name the predators of malaria parasites and human tapeworms.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The golden rule ligitimizes violence done by masochists,

no, violence done to masochists.

and the wife test ligitimizes violence done by loveless persons.

no, it doesn't give permission but militates against violence.

The fact that something is immoral doesn't stop anyone doing it, nor does it make the action always wrong (war, selfdefence...)  but the tests provide a framework for criminal law.  And a moral action must pass both tests.

The golden rule doesn't say to masochists that what they do to others are immoral, as long as they are also willing to be treated the same. Our judgement that what they do is wrong come from something else.

Your pair of rules don't stop masochists who have no love from inflicting pain to others. What they do pass your test, yet most other people see it as immoral.

Lie and theft aren't always wrong either. There must be something more fundamental to justify them. That's what we are trying to discover here.

 If your moral standard says that something is immoral, but you insist that its okay, then your moral standard has been overridden by something more important, even if you can't identify it yet.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

OK, a bit of hair wouldn't come amiss, but do I really want acne and a squeaky voice? How will my great grandson react when a randy 120-year-old millionaire Adonis starts chatting up his girlfriend? 

When technology is advanced enough to reverse ageing, we should be able to handle minor medical inconveniences better.
A universal morality doesn't depend on momentary feeling and emotion.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

at least they are useful as food for their predators

Please name the predators of malaria parasites and human tapeworms.

If we haven't identify them, we can create one.
I bring it here not because I'm against humans or want to defend pests. I just want consistency and against double standard, which makes it impossible to follow moral rules reliably.

[alancalverd]

Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 16:08:41
OK, a bit of hair wouldn't come amiss, but do I really want acne and a squeaky voice? How will my great grandson react when a randy 120-year-old millionaire Adonis starts chatting up his girlfriend? 

When technology is advanced enough to reverse ageing, we should be able to handle minor medical inconveniences better.
A universal morality doesn't depend on momentary feeling and emotion.

Not momentary, but an entire generation disenfranchised and frustrated by the horde of competitive, successful, wealthy, educated and experienced old men in their physical prime, who grab all the nubile young women and never get tired of it. I hit my peak (and was free of acne) at around 25, but didn't have any money. Now I have a house, a car and a pension so no need to work, but suddenly I'm 25 for ever, and my great grandson hasn't got a chance!

[alancalverd]

The golden rule doesn't say to masochists that what they do to others are immoral, as long as they are also willing to be treated the same.

You are confusing masochists with sadists.

Interestingly, there is a UK legal precedent that criminalises sadistic assault even when the masochistic victim has clearly, knowingly and repeatedly consented to it. Drawing the line between sadomasochism and boxing did exercise the court somewhat but I think the concept of a refereed contest of skill and strength was held to be qualitatively different from onesided assault.   

[alancalverd]

If we haven't identify them [predators of parasites] , we can create one.
I bring it here not because I'm against humans or want to defend pests. I just want consistency and against double standard, which makes it impossible to follow moral rules reliably.

No need to create a predator: we already have adequate poisons to get rid of most common parasites. My point is that they are the end of the food chain - they don't have natural predators, so we won't be starving another species by eliminating them.

There is no double standard. No, I wouldn't like to be poisoned, nor would I poison my family. But a parasite is an enemy that cannot compromise or run away.

"Moral rules" is too concise to allow for practicalities. My tests can define moral versus immoral actions, but the rules of society are laid down in laws that reflect public judgement of the seriousness of immoral acts and exonerating circumstances. Hence killing in selfdefence may be legitimate, though the case of a farmer who shot a persistent burglar was finely balanced in the opposite direction, and would have found the farmer innocent in a US court.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The golden rule doesn't say to masochists that what they do to others are immoral, as long as they are also willing to be treated the same.

You are confusing masochists with sadists.

Interestingly, there is a UK legal precedent that criminalises sadistic assault even when the masochistic victim has clearly, knowingly and repeatedly consented to it. Drawing the line between sadomasochism and boxing did exercise the court somewhat but I think the concept of a refereed contest of skill and strength was held to be qualitatively different from onesided assault.   

No. If the sadists who inflict pain to others don't want the same pain to be inflicted to them, they violate golden rule, thus can be judged as immoral. On the other hand, if they also want the same pain to be inflicted to them, they are not immoral according to golden rule. In this case the masochism is the characteristic that liberates them from being judged as immoral by golden rule.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No need to create a predator: we already have adequate poisons to get rid of most common parasites. My point is that they are the end of the food chain - they don't have natural predators, so we won't be starving another species by eliminating them.

There is no double standard. No, I wouldn't like to be poisoned, nor would I poison my family. But a parasite is an enemy that cannot compromise or run away.

By standard of some other species, humans are either symbionts, parasites, predators, or preys. You need to explain why one species is to be given priviledges over others.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The video explains intelligence, how they are measured and have been used morally and imorally.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Not momentary, but an entire generation disenfranchised and frustrated by the horde of competitive, successful, wealthy, educated and experienced old men in their physical prime, who grab all the nubile young women and never get tired of it. I hit my peak (and was free of acne) at around 25, but didn't have any money. Now I have a house, a car and a pension so no need to work, but suddenly I'm 25 for ever, and my great grandson hasn't got a chance!

There are somethings we got so used to that we take them for granted. When our knowledge and technology get more advanced, we may need to reconsider our priorities. I described the highest priority in another thread, which I quote below.

Just in case I haven't made it clear yet,  when I said that currently known best chance to achieve the universal terminal goal is through improvement of humanity, I meant it as a superorganism, rather than human individuals. Individually, there's nothing much can be done compared to other life forms.
The parts of this superorganism are not limited to physical bodies of homo sapiens, but include everything else that supporting its existence, such as their microbiome, food chains, infrastructures, institutions, and knowledge.

The whole process that produced current human civilization is essentially an accumulation of organized information. Only by continuing this process we will be able to achieve the universal terminal goal.

As long as we still exist, there is a chance to achieve the universal terminal goal. As long as it hasn't been achieved yet, there's always a room for improvement. It means something must change. Which part is yet to be determined. An accurate virtual universe can help identifying the most effective and efficient changes to be done.

Nowadays, senescence and degenerative diseases sound like stupid design. But back then, they were important mechanisms to enforce genetic changes, hence opening the chance for genetic improvement.
Even though harmful mutations have higher chance to occur than the beneficial ones, the risk can be countered by higher reproduction rate. But that means many individuals must be sacrificed to accumulate genetic improvements, which is not an efficient strategy.

This inefficiency can be countered by sexual reproduction. Specimens containing harmful mutations will find it harder to reproduce. They may not even live long enough into maturity.
Sexual reproduction which works mostly in diploid or polyploid organism enables accumulation of organized information in a form of genetic materials.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I've cautioned against -isms and philosophers many times in this conversation. This is a science forum so we should stick to robust hypotheses and economic implementations of them.

Whatever idea you can come up with, philosophers will always find a name for it. At least they will classify your idea into one or more existing categories. IMO, your morality is deontological, since actions or decisions are morally judged by their compliance with some rules, instead of their consequences. But somehow you suggested that we should do immoral things in case they produce more desirable consequences. This inconsitency would make it hard for any conscious agents to follow your morality reliably.

[alancalverd]

On the other hand, if they also want the same pain to be inflicted to them, they are not immoral according to golden rule.

That's why we have two tests. And you must remember that even if your proposed action meets both criteria in your own mind, that doesn't make it "right", which is defined by the moral standards of the majority as expressed in criminal law.